August, die she must. The town hall freak show is winding down, the media circus is packing the cameras and satellite dishes and hairspray back into the vans, and Congress is soon heading back to the relative safety of DC. Yet, after all the fuss and bother, they’re probably no more or less resolved to pass health care reform than they were back in June, when those first delirious fevers rose like clouds of infectious mosquito nymphs hatched from a thick, overheated carpet of soggy astroturf.
Let’s hope they succeed at getting it done. But, win or lose, we’re crazy to think that the goon squads formed and trained to instigate this summer’s health care wars will pack it in just because the silly season is over. Those folks have tasted power, graduated from their introductory courses in Political Bullying 101, shared some camraderie and beer, and felt the heft of their own political muscle. That was fun. Now, what do we do next? Paralyze the school board over evolution in the textbooks? Intimidate the city council into shutting down the immigrants’ services center — or beat up some immigrants, so they’ll just stop using it? Vandalize the cars and houses of known liberals? Get one of our own elected sheriff, so he can deputize the rest of us and make our posse official?
Nothin’ but good times ahead. Now that they’re organized up and had a little practice, the possibilities for further mayhem are limited only by the boundless paranoia and unfettered fantasies of the right-wing mind. Out at our local county fair this past weekend, the GOP booth was festooned with a wide array of buttons, tees, and bumper stickers proclaiming the owner’s status as a "Proud Member of the Right-Wing Mob," and other similarly, um, assertively empowered sentiments. Judging from the general belligerence of the collection on offer, that seems to be the GOP’s whole political identity now. They’re determined to move boldly into 2010 as the party of America’s union-, immigrant-, democracy-, and (if necessary) head-busting squadristi — and they’re damn proud of it all, you betcha
* * *
How in the hell did we get here? And more to the point: how do we get back out?
The first question is depressingly easy. This is precisely where 40 years wandering in the right-wing moral, cultural, and economic wilderness has left us — and, in fact, where it was always intended to lead us. A liberal democratic society is a complex system that’s designed to be very resilient and self-correcting in the face of all kinds of extremism. But the health of that system — especially its natural immunity to would-be attackers — ultimately depends on just one factor. It cannot survive without people’s ongoing confidence in a functioning political contract.
When it’s working right, this contract guarantees the upper classes predictable, reliable wealth in return for their investments. It promises the middle class mobility, comfort, and security. It ensures the working classes fair reward for fair work, chances to move ahead, and protection against very real risk that they’ll be forced into poverty if they can’t work any more. Generally, as long as everybody gets their piece of this constantly re-negotiated deal, everybody stays invested in keeping the system going — and a democratic society will remain upright, healthy, and moving mostly forward.
For the past four decades, conservatives have done everything in their power to dismantle that essential contract, and thus destroy our mutual confidence in the fundamental agreements that allow any democratic system to function. (None dare call it treason — but a solid case could be made.) This isn’t news: by now, most of us can recite the litany, chapter and verse, of the all the many ways they hacked away at America’s essential ability to function as the Constitution intended.
But the biggest loser, as always, has been the working class — the people whose only real power lies in their sweat and their numbers. Their faith in the promise of democratic self-government has been shattered through years of union-busting, farm foreclosures, factory exports, college grant cuts, subprime mortgage scams, and all manner of betrayal, treachery, neglect, and abuse. Over in the comments threads at Orcinus, we hear from these furious folks almost every day. The way they see it, representative democracy has repeatedly failed to deliver on anything it might have once promised them. At this point, the disgust runs so deep that anybody who’s got other ideas — theocracy, corporatocracy, anarchy, whaddaya got? — has a fair shot at getting their attention.
And their outrage is so total that any target they’re offered looks about as good as any other. Without that reason-strangling sense of betrayal and paralyzing fear of further loss already in place, it’s hard to see how Fox News’ windbags or Dick Armey’s checkbook would have been able to convince these people to turn on the best chance at real government help they’ve been offered in decades. But with it, they’re about ready to shoot at anything they’re told to aim at.
America’s best (and perhaps only) chance to keep the shreds of its tattered democracy intact is to get serious about cutting working Americans back into the democratic contract — and repair their broken trust by making damn sure those promises are actually kept. Once they’re back on board, the system will begin to work again for everyone. Until then, the accelerating breakdown is just going to continue.
It’s not going to be easy. Right-wing populism is riding so high among the middle and working classes right now that there’s nothing progressives can say right now that they’re likely to believe. So we need to let our actions do the talking — and there are five solid places we can start that will get their attention.
First: Ironically, passing health care reform would be a colossal trust-builder, as I’ve argued before. The right wing knows this, which is precisely why it’s recruited the very people most likely to benefit from reform to fight as their shock troops against it. Simply seeing the government working to provide such an essential common good for everyone would shift the entire American conversation about the purposes and capabilities of government. It would go a long way toward restoring our confidence in the very idea of democracy, and make it much harder for anti-democratic arguments to get traction.
Second: We need to re-establish the rule of law. You cannot have a credible democracy as long as there’s so obviously one standard of economic and civil justice for the rich and well-connected, and a very different one that’s designed to make victims out of everybody else. Nobody seriously believes any more that rich or powerful people can ever be held accountable by an American court. Prosecuting the Bush Administration for their assorted crimes against America and the world would make an unforgettable, inarguable statement — both to our own citizens, and the rest of the planet — about our renewed commitment to justice.
That would be a great start. But we’d need to follow it up with a whole series of reforms, including holding corporations fully accountable for actions that destroy the commons; ending the catastrophic "war on drugs;" giving people back their access to the courts; and restoring some proportionality to our sentencing laws, which have put millions of lower-class families into the permanent thrall of the justice system.
Third: We need to get serious about investing in education. It’s well understood now that our broken health care system is right on the bottom of the barrel among industrialized countries; but most of us don’t realize that our schools are in the same comparatively wretched shape. Thomas Jefferson understood that liberal democracy is impossible without a literate, well-informed populace; and the endless parade of teabagger loonitude is precisely the kind of know-nothing nightmare he most feared.
Conservative "tax revolt" politics have been undermining American education since California’s Proposition 13 passed in 1977 — and we should draw a clear, bright line between decades of systematic defunding and the monumental failures of reason we’re seeing all around us now. Don’t know much about history — so the Christian Right is busily rewriting it to argue that there’s no such thing as a wall between church and state. Don’t know much biology — so fewer than half of all Americans think the theory of evolution explains our origins. Don’t know much about the science book — so we’re ready to believe whatever junk science the corporate PR folks can conjure up. Don’t know much about the French I took — which has left the country insular, parochial, and unable to work and play well with others in a world it purports to lead.
But the worst failure is that we went through a decades-long patch where we didn’t teach civics — and still don’t much, especially in states where it’s not part of the standardized tests. Which means that there are tens of millions among us who have absolutely no idea what’s in the Bill of Rights, or how a law gets made, or where the limits of state power lie. It’s quite possible that if the conservatives hadn’t undermined universal civics education, the right-wing talking heads would have never found an audience. Instead, what we have is a country where most people are getting their basic political education from Rush Limbaugh and FOX News.
If we want our democracy back, that has to change.
Fourth: No democracy in history has ever survived with our current levels of inequality. There’s no reason for the middle and working classes to trust anything about a system that’s so clearly rigged to suck money straight out of their pockets into the tax-free offshore bank accounts of the wealthy — who, of course, turn right around and use that money to buy off our government, so they can suck up even more of our economy for themselves.
This has gone on so long that we’ve arrived at the endpoint where every single civic function you can name — health care, defense, law enforcement, prisons, infrastructure development, research, media, and (increasingly) education — makes decisions not on the basis of what will best serve the common good or give taxpayers or consumers the biggest bang for the buck, but whether and how much it will pay off some well-connected corporation. Doesn’t matter what the public wants, or what makes sense, or what will save money in the long run. The bottom line is: if Halliburton or Wackenhut or United Health isn’t getting their cut, it ain’t happening, period. And that’s pretty much the definition of a corporatized state — which, as we’ve seen, is one of the two necessary ingredients required for full-on fascism.
Restoring equality also means meaningful immigration reform. As long as there’s a two-tiered employment system that lets employers sidestep wage, discrimination, and safety laws by hiring undocumented workers without penalty, there’s going to be a permanent trap door under the feet of American workers. To close that door, we need to shore up the border, completely revamp our utterly dysfunctional immigration process, enforce existing workplace laws and prosecute employers who violate them, and get our current crop of undocumented immigrants on the books so the laws can be applied to them, too. Until we do this, nobody is going to get a fair shake in the job market — and there’s no reason for working-class Americans to have any trust at all in the system’s ability to deliver for them.
Finally: we need to focus on restoring our basic liberal institutions. Back in 2005, Chris Bowers noted that progressive ideology has always been disseminated through four major cultural drivers: the universities (and related intellectual infrastructure); unions; the media; and liberal religious organizations. Knowing this, conservatives set out back in the 1970s to undermine all four of these institutions — and over time, they’ve largely succeeded in blunting their historic capacity to disseminate and perpetuate the progressive worldview.
But change is on the way. The new GI Bill, like the previous one, is likely to create an expansive renaissance in American university education, restoring vigor and diversity to our academic and intellectual community. The Employee Free Choice Act, if passed, will help unions regain their role as the voice and political muscle of the working and middle class. Bloggers have formed the core of a new progressive media that’s calling the corporate media to account, and slowly forcing it to change its one-sided ways.
On the other hand, there’s still considerable misunderstanding and confusion within our own camp about the essential role liberal religion should play in lending heart and spirit to the progressive resurgence. With a few notable exceptions (Tom Paine, Robert Ingersoll), American progressivism has always drawn its most compelling moral voices from the ranks of Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Unitarians and Universalists, and a wide collection of social gospel Evangelicals. And even now, the vast majority of Americans — on both ends of the spectrum — still draw their political ethics straight out of their personal religious beliefs. As Bowers points out: we need those voices if we’re going to succeed.
Fascism is so dangerous precisely because it speaks to its believers in the language of emotion, populism, purity, redemption, and enduring values. Nobody on the progressive side knows how to speak that language — and match that moral force and energy — better than our own native faith groups. Secular progressives may wish it weren’t true, but it is: there’s simply no way we can rebuild a strong democratic system without holding up our end of a broad new culture-wide discussion about morality, meaning, priorities, passion, and values. And those conversations begin most naturally in our houses of worship.
* * *
I’m well aware that this reads like a liberal wish list. And that’s really my entire point. Progressive democracy is a self-reinforcing system. Wherever you have educated citizens, thriving progressive institutions, a solid public infrastructure, fair courts, and a relatively level economic and social playing field, you’ve got prime growing conditions that lead to an expanding economy, increased rights and freedoms, and a strong collective sense of investment and confidence in the system. Progressivism fosters the conditions that make a nation secure, peaceful, stable, and virtually impervious to revolutions of all kinds. In particular, it creates a natural resistance that recognizes fascism as a mortal enemy, and never fails to raise effective immune antibodies against it.
Almost every conservative policy going back to Nixon has, in one way or another, undermined our ability to mount this kind of resistance. The emergence of corporate-backed brownshirts is a clear warning sign of that the system that keeps America progressive and free is now hitting its point of fatal breakdown. And we don’t have much time: if their behavior succeeds and escalates in the coming months, we could be done for in a matter of months. By next August, this one may be remembered as the last moment of calm before the revolution.
Doing nothing is not an option. The only long-term antidote to our current wave of emergent fascism is a big, strong dose of trust-building progressive culture and politics, administered daily until the system’s basic democratic functions come back on line. If we want to build a fascist-proof America for the long haul, we must stand up now for everything we believe, and everything we are.
Read the rest of the series:
Fascist America: Are We There Yet?
Fascist America II: The Last Turnoff
Fascist America III: Resistance for the Long Haul





60 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Thanks for this important work. Highly recommended.
I sure hope they are reading your stuff at the White House.
Thank You.
Fantasticf! I’m going to recommend this to everyone.
Thank you, brilliant and pithy and oh so true. I am going to make a file and keep all three parts and send them to everyone I know who doesnt do FDL.
what on earth could that be???
Obama’s health insurance reform act that includes individual mandates that would force them to pay the insurance cartel for crappy high deductible plans?
you’ve got to be kidding.
this is precisely why the current reform measures are so very dangerous. a tiny non-viable public option and mandates for very expensive crappy insurance will be a colossal trust destroyer. what could be a bigger message about the inability of liberal gov to work for ordinary people?
i do not understand why any progressive would choose, not just to support individual mandates, but to actively suppress (or support people who are suppressing) info on single payer based universal healthcare — which could actually make a v big difference for the better in the vast majority of american’s lives.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe the reason we’re so vulnerable to fascism in this country isn’t the *underinvolvement* of progressive-leaning religious institutions, but rather the *overinvolvement* of religion in politics in general.
Why do you assume that secular progressives like myself don’t want to have a discussion about “morality, meaning, priorities, passion, and values”? Do you assume that secularists don’t have those things in their lives? That we cannot? Because we don’t go to ‘houses of worship’?
Please.
There’s a whole bunch people just south of the United States that can teach us the “how-to” part:
http://narcosphere.narconews.c…..thing-else
They’re in the thick of it right now in Honduras, and it looks like they’re going to win.
In general, I’ve felt way too much time is spent around Liberal blogs describing and debating why things are like they are, which has some value, but very little spent on the actual how-to make things better. What can each and every person do right now, each and every day, to make societal change happen?
Less Why and more How. So, what kind of actions do you think could mobilize enough Liberals, and probably most importantly enough “independents” who voted Obama, together to stop the highly-financed and BigMedia-fueled fascist takeover of America?
Umm, Sara you had it going on until that last bit about how “those conversations [about morality, meaning, passion, priorities and values] begin most naturally in our houses of worship” and strongly implying, if not stating explicitly, that secular progressives must take a back seat – presumably because, not being involved with religion we cannot possibly have any morals, values or passion for our positions.
What a bunch of claptrap. I don’t doubt for a moment that religious progressives have much to offer but it is simply not true that those of us coming from a secular point of view cannot see or argue for progressive positions as a matter of our moral and ethical values or do so with passion.
yes, I couldn’t agree more. The biggest danger of HR 3200 is that it is likely to fail and to reinforce the alienation from Government and to reinforce the belief that it cannot help people.
Sara, I too doubt some of your emphasis on religious progressivism. However, overall I think this is a great piece, and I also think that the greater involvement of religious progressives in countering the trend toward fascism si very, very important. Religious progressives have always made great contributions to leftist populist and progressive movements; and the progressive movement needs them now, too.
New thought for me, upon reading a history of the Ottoman empire. Defense of dysfunctional system (i.e., U.S. medical care) is sure sign of decay. Could always be reversed by a reformer, but it is very clear that O’s not our man.
Great post, Mrs. Robinson.
But you didn’t mention who will be herded into the death camps if we succumb to facism. (Perhaps you left this out intentionally.) So I’ll say it: the Blacks and Latinos.
We must not let it happen.
American Indians, Muslims, women who had abortions, poor white people who ask for medical care, anyone who is not them. The population problem will be solved but the intelligence average is going down dramatically.
Deliberate fail.
As I said on an earlier post, it is bad enough when the people are fooled by the Political Cla$$, but it invites devastating disappointment or even actual disaster when the people fool themselves.
As eCHAN says @12, the “defense of a dysfunctional system … is a sure sign of decay.”
The acceptance of a dysfunctional system reveals a defeated populace inexorably headed toward diminishing social viability and the very real likelihood of protracted periods of demagogic “solutions”, social belligerency and, if the trajectory does not change, the collapse of society itself.
“Society” to be understood as Krisnamurti described it, “being the way individual people treat other individuals.”
We are on increasingly shaky ground that will crumble under our feet if the people do not choose to become active in determining the course of their own future.
Simply put: The crux of this moment is not about the Political Cla$$, it is about the people, what they understand and what they have the courage to do.
Interesting times.
DW
See Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale.
What a great read Sara, not just this but the whole series. I’m with you on almost everything except the recommendations on what’s to be done, not so much that I think they wouldn’t work but because I think they’re just not going to happen.
Nothing is going to be done about inequality, nothing is going to be done about our education system (which has been an acknoweledged problem for years), and most certainly no one from the Bush administration is going to be held accountable and thus mark a return to the rule of law.
So, I’m looking forward to part IV which reveals the likely outcomes and/or options given none of those other things are going to happen.
And to DW, you wrote this:
I believe the vast, vast, vast majority of “the peopel” you describe do NOT understand, and therefore, can’t be expected to have the courage to do…. anything. I’m not sure what you can do when most folks really, really, don’t understand.
There’s a reason why most European governments work better and are more responsive to the ordinary people than this one, and that is because the people, by and large, in those countries, do “get it,” at least much more so than the everyday joe does here.
And I don’t see a solution, other than violence, which isn’t going to end pretty no matter who “wins.”
Interesting times indeed.
Well I guess there would be a silver lining: I sure would love to see the look on Clarence Thomas’ and Ward Connerly’s faces when they come for them and their families.
Sara when you brought up religion you weakened your argument.
The arguments for democracy are based on rational critical thinking and analysis. Religion does not walk in that house.
In fact fascism as I understand it often seeks to link itself with religion like entering the city in a trojan horse, to sell the people a bill of goods that there is some sort of moral underpinning for fascism.
For anti fascists to use the same CRUTCH religion because the the failure of the people to make important decisions using ONLY critical thinking is wrong headed and will ultimately leads to a society which can accept bigotry elitism and exclusion.
Religion has no place in the public square. None whatsoever.
We differ in what we see in the people.
Twenty percent are arrogantly ignorant and prone to being exhorted to violence.
The question is whether the remaining eighty percent will tolerate that violence.
It seems to fall to us, we who have had the privilege of thinking and considering to go out among that majority and seek to encourage them to become whole in their citizenship and responsibility as human beings.
(I would guess that many here have been doing aspects of that “outreach” for years, and those who have not must consider doing so.)
It is up to us.
No one else can or will, not the Political CLa$$, not the majority of “educators”, not even the majority of the clergy.
We really have no choice.
Except to do nothing and hope that things, all by themselves, will get “better”.
An that, OFG, is no choice at all.
BTW, I’m enjoying and appreciating your thoughtful and considered comments very much OFG – thank you.
DW
Gosh, Saran. So well written; almost all of it. You lost focus at point four where you started out with an anti-corporate rant then seemed to find cause for it in immigrants. Confusing.
Then your “Final,” aka “fifth” point, lost me. I clicked the READ MORE link and all; you got me. And I read all through one, two, and three and I was all set to give you the billmon award for best blogger since billmon died in 2007.
You gotta learn when to stop.
Thanks Sara, I was struggling to define fascism to a friend and got as close as the corporatocracy, aesthetics, and the propensity for violence against the “other”. Thanks again for the education.
SanderO, you sound like the elitist exclusionist that you decry.
Congress is soon heading back to the relative safety of DC. The temporary relative safety of DC, in all probability.
Very compelling read. Thank you.
America’s WAR ON EMPATHY, the only “War on …” launched that sadly has worked.
Sara, Excellent post. I agree fully with your analysis and am dismayed by some posters’ rejection out of hand of any thought that members of organized religions can be helpful in restoring the social contract. We need people of good will no matter what their faith position and the faith traditions you cite have indeed produced great progressive champions. Teddy Kennedy’s Catholic faith was central to his understanding of the need to stand with the poor and marginalized against those who exploit for love of money and the power.
To those who dismiss people of faith out of hand I would point out that the decision not to believe in a deity requires the same Keirkegaardian leap of faith as the decision to believe. Neither position can be proved empirically.
That is simply the best post I’ve read since I began to read on the intenet. You actually summarized the country I new, the prevailing, commonly held concept which was moving along well until about three decades ago, and it’s insidious undermining. Unfortunately, the comments are discouraging. They make it appear that progressives cannot form around any center and begin to reconstruct. It appears we scrutinize each facet of myriad issues, looking for compliance with our own very particular version in each case. Variations are unacceptable and must be denounced. Then you see the conclusion: Obama can’t be our man. Somehow, we’ll all be able to unite around someone else down the road, who will be able to please us all. Then we will go forward.
I spotted your post following mine. You’re right that there are those on the left whose quest for ideological purity mirrors the excesses on the right. I think that we have to hope (and I do believe) that there enough people who are willing to accommodate that we can take the interim steps needed to put us back on track.
Fascism is loaded word, but ours will not look like Germany’s. We can use it for correlation but not for specific markers to know when we have arrived. We may be there already.
It’s totalitarian capitalism, with diminished personal freedom, but still may be democratic.
I think you’ve got some good ideas about immigration reform, but you missed the cause.
Free Trade Treaties like NAFTA. Neoliberal economic policies imposed by the IMF and the world bank are starving these people. They are forced to come here to survive, and a border fence is not going to work.
We are providing military Weapons and training at the School of the Americas to fight the war on drugs…. The cure also is the cause…
I agree with other commenters about religion. There is a long history of Christianity partnering with brutal state powers. e.g. French Algerian war, Nazi Germany and the brutal South American dirty wars, the list could run on and on. The point I’d like to make about religion is that it’s a tool to control people with. It’s being used right now to foment hatred towards Muslims and Arabs.
We all worship at the altar of democracy but most of us confuse it with a constitutionally based republican government. (I don’t mean the republican party)
Fareed Zakaria on illiberal democracy:
Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves…”..Herbert Marcuse,
What you are seeking here is a cult of personality.
Our President should be a vassal for our causes. He doesn’t seem to be willing to do that. I dont know if he was at one point, or if he has become a gollum after he got a hold of the ring.
Rally around causes, not men.
As a secular humanist, I’ll probably be part of the herd. It is scary enough living in the bible belt already.
Human beings who quest for power will use any means to achieve it. Stalin stands as a secular counterpoint to Torquemada.
It’s pointless to speculate on whether you will qualify for culling. What steps can we take to save democracy instead of sitting around waiting for the train wreck?
Actually, I find the French Revolution more instructive than Lord of the Rings, although I think Tolkein was a genious of sorts. One of the most striking things about the French Revolution was that virtually all of the revolutionary factions were reformers and idealists. The all had very specific ideas about the perfection of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Successively, they lopped each others heads off in progress toward the ideal. Napoleon was the ultimate winner.
Rather than searching for the perfect “vassal for our causes” (and I’m not sure we could agree on who is the best vassal and exactly what the causes are) I would have hoped we could unite behind someone who is smart, well intentioned, and inspiring, at least until we begin to turn the tide. Then we have eons to perfect. But you discourage me.
Nice to see you here. I had seen your comment after writing mine, and read the last paragraph to my wife, because it precisely expressed a point I’ve always made. While I tend to be intellectually agnostic, I’ve always pointed out that the self aclaimed athiests make as great a leap of faith as the devout fundamentalists. I used to say, “they figure out how to build a carborator and conclude that there can’t be a General Motors.”
Anyway, it’s very nice to see you.
it would help if we had a viable executive branch, but alas no
“They’re selling postcards of the hanging
Where they’re painting the passports brown
Yeah, the beauty parlor’s filled with sailors
The circus is in town
Oh now but here comes the blind commissioner
Well, they got him in a trance
One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker
The other’s in his pants
And the riot squad, they’re restless
They need somewhere to go
As Lady and I look out tonight
From Desolation Row…” zimmy
Thanks. To riff on a metaphor: If we of good will can get together to drain the swamp the alligators will have to go elsewhere.
Just so. I hope to see you in he future as my own good will occasionally lapses.
Which poster here rejected ‘out of hand’ the idea that *any* religious person could contribute to improving the situation?
I looked more than once and couldn’t find one.
I did however, as I noted and *documented* in my first comment, find, in the original post no less, a strawman argument against secular progressives and a dismissal, if not of our morality and idealism, then of our ability to hold our own in a public discussion of morality and idealism.
SanderO at 19 said that *religion* has no place in the public square, not religious people. I agree with that. There is simply no way to marry a form of government based on empiricism, reason, and individual liberty with any religious institution. Religion is by its very nature unproveable, untestable and subjective; if you make policy based on religion, you can never find the ‘right’ answer to a question, because there isn’t one. It’s all opinion, and all opinions are equally valid.
So we have to sidestep the issue. Our government should stay out of the business of religion, since it can’t contribute to that conversation, and religion should stay out of government, since it has nothing constructive to add to the process either.
Religious individuals are an entirely different matter.
Also, you’re completely wrong on the issue of belief in a deity. My lack of belief in a deity requires no significant leap of faith; faith never comes into it. I simply look at the entire scope of human history, the innumerable experiments to test the existence of the supernatural (and their subsequent failures), and see the immense explanatory power of the physical sciences on the other hand. There is no more leap of faith involved in concluding that, based on all available evidence, there is no God, than there is in concluding that gravity will still work when I get out of bed in the morning, or that the sun wasn’t swallowed by a dragon at dusk.
If God shows himself or herself tomorrow, standing astride the Capitol here in Madison with a flaming sword and celestial choir, that theory would be in serious jeopardy. Ditto for sun-devouring dragons.
Have you even critically studied Obama’s positions?
He has developed a well worn pattern of breaking his campaign promises, all for the benefit of the financial industry – his largest campaign donor. he’s appointing right-wingers and war criminals to Foreign Policy and National Intelligence posts. .
He’s taken a hard right turns at every juncture, even exceeding the excesses of George Bush on usurping constitutional power. He’s holding secret negotiations with Health Industrialists. Just like Cheney did when he let Enron write our energy policies. He promised CSPAN in those meeings, not padlocks on the doors and disneyland giveaways to the top 1%.
I don’t need a daddy, I need a good President. And even Carl Rove is smart.
If this were 1932, You would’ve have made a “Good German” with your slavish devotion.
Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
I don’t want to turn this into a battle. For me, and for people like Teddy Kennedy it is precisely the the tenets of our religious beliefs (or philosophy based on it, if you will) that compel us to seek justice for the oppressed. Your philosophy does the same. So we can agree that the important thing is to stand together to get something done to have the society reflect the values we share.
more on the subject—–>http://www.openleft.com/diary/…..ism-stupid
Hyperbole is dangerous. And personal attacks only reflect on those who make them. The task is to turn the country and it will take longer than it takes to turn a ship. Patience, faith tempered with a healthy skepticism and perseverance are required. Obama is not perfect but then only God is. The rest of us shuffle along doing the best we can to do good and be good and are subject to all of life’s temptations. To indulge in the despair you are positing can only serve to immobilize you. Keep working for the good you seek. You may be surprised at the result.
Excellent point. Good to know someone is learning from history.
I’d say gollum.
Fair enough, which was my point with my very first comment. I liked this post quite a bit, right up to the part that said I had to take a back seat because I don’t go to church every week.
Thank you for your considerate response, by the way. I wasn’t expecting that, and I’m glad to see my expectations proven wrong.
The hyperbole aside, I think there is a point here in that Obama has proven himself to be completely in the pocket of certain interests. In his case I think it’s more ideological than economic; Obama can’t bring himself to question the fundamental tenets of American-style capitalism, so he bails out the banks; he can’t bring himself to question American imperialism, so he expands and defends Bush’s policies on torture and spying; he can’t bring himself to doubt that his enemies might have something other than America’s best interests at heart, etc. In all cases, it wasn’t the American ideal, the dream, that failed; for Obama, it was individuals who strayed from the path of righteousness.
In a way, straightforward, Republican style greed would be easier to deal with. Obama is making all of these terrible, terrible mistakes, in my opinion, because he genuinely believes in what he’s doing. As the old line goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Give me a break on the personality cult crap. Did my description of Obama sound like a hero worshipper. Did I draw any analogy from romantic fiction? My very unromantic viewpoint is that you need to play the cards dealt until the next deal.
I frankly see little difference in your flinging around accusations of tyranny and injustice and those of the town hall screamers. Both are about equally likely to get anything constructive done in the next three years,but are fairly likely to bring on increased decline, chaos, and ultimate victory of real tyranny.
I’ve seen Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry go down, because they were either too conservative for some or too liberal for others. As a result, we got what we got and are where we are. We probably would have reached this point even faster if Clinton and Carter hadn’t intervened before the were recognized as “Gollum.”
P.S., frogkisser- I just reread your description of me as a potential Nazi. I rest my case about your behaving like the townhall crazies. I mean, you’re hysterical. Get hold of yourself. Your frenzied name calling is an embarrassment to the progressive cause.
Although I believe you’re being premature you’re entitled to your assessment of Obama. My point is that there is work to be done to achieve the goals we seek for the good of society. Sitting around for the Apocalypse isn’t one of them. If God chose to end the world tomorrow we would still be duty-bound to work for the good of all and the betterment of conditions up to the end. Anything less is unacceptable.
hctomorrow: This post is sort of trying to address both you and shekissesfrogs and not trying to be snarky. Hope it doesn’t come across that way.
Good. Though, I would argue that with 15% of the American population self-identifying in the category “No Religion” it might help for atheists to draw a distinction between secular progressivism, i.e. we should leave God out of our progressivism, and the much more useful pragmatic progressivism, i.e. we atheists have our own moral philosophy for progressivism, and the good news is that it’s compatible with liberal religious progressivism.
Heh, don’t worry about me, I’m not that sensitive to snark. I for one am not advocating sitting around on the Obama issue, I just don’t hold out a lot of hope that he’s going to realize his mistakes without receiving a good old fashioned political skull-cracking.
The Progressive Caucus, if they can defeat Baucus’ little side-show and force a real public option, will serve nicely in this role, and finally force Obama to pick a side, rather than singing kumbaya and letting the Republicans ruin what’s left of this country.
Absolutely. My tradition has a saying – “Have faith that it all depends on God, but work like it all depends on you.” Together maybe we can do something to fix healthcare and begin to reestablish the balance in our system that acts to prevent concentrated power and dictatorship.
I obviously need to clarify my position regarding religion.
Most students of change these days agree that real, lasting social change begins with a rearrangement of the fundamental myths and metaphors that shape the basic worldview and form the basis of value for all the decisions made by the society. In the modern world, these various reality models are disseminated several ways; but for most of human history, religion was THE main storyteller on this front. And the stone fact is that for about four-fifths of the United States, it still is.
The conservatives knew this from the get. (I’ve blogged extensively on Howard Phillips’ and Paul Weyrich’s writings from the early 70s on how they were going to use conservative religion to change the way the whole country viewed reality — and succeeded.) Historically, progressives have also been most successful when they invoked people’s existing religious ideals and imagery to get them to do the right thing. This kind of conversation is as old as American discourse, and it has tremendous power to change the thinking of people who hold to some form of religious belief.
At the same time, I do not believe for a minute that atheists don’t have a part in this conversation. Some of my most popular pieces in all my years of blogging have been the ones in which I point out that all atheists have things they hold deeply sacred — family, community, the environment, professional responsibilities, justice, the Constitution, the dream of a peaceful future. And I’d agree (nay: insist loudly) that these things — the ones we can all agree on, regardless of our theology or lack thereof — should be THE core values of progressivism.
But presentation is everything. When we talk to any group (people of faith, or no faith) about these core values, it’s incumbent upon us to express them in terms that connect them deeply to the audience’s own ethical and moral systems. When talking to Jews, quote the Talmud. When talking to Baptists, cite Paul. When addressing atheists, use logic.
The problem is that there are a lot of progressive policymakers and activists who visibly cringe at the very idea of values talk. It’s squishy and emotional, and they don’t like it. In their view, our policies should always be sold on the basis of their patent rationality. The minute you start talking about deeper human values, they’re terrified we’ll be invoking religion — and that way, they are sure, lies madness.
Under the thrall of these movement leaders, we too often refrain from ever talking about things in moral terms at all. And then the conservatives come along an unabashedly invoke the deep, ancient religious myths and metaphors that 80% of the country builds their entire cognitive foundation on. Because they do this, they get passion, engagement, and commitment — and they whip our butts every time.
Obama’s biggest mojo was his gift for connecting policy to values to foundational cultural myths. He learned how to do this in church, y’all. So, as others have pointed out, did the Kennedys. Our progressive religious institutions are chock-full of people who are really, really good at this; but they’re routinely silenced and marginalized by people who think the wall of separation means that we should never drag moral values into our politics. It’s a fatal mistake that may cost us the nation if we don’t get ourselves right with it.
The conservatives (including our nascent fascists) know better. Fascism is always blatantly anti-intellectual and highly emotional. Since for the vast majority of Americans emotional gut feeling is far more primal a motivator than reason, we cannot cede that field to them. We have to meet them on it. If we don’t, we lose, period — as every cooly reasonable liberal movement that’s ever come up against the heat of fascist rhetoric has found out the hard way.
If we’re going to sell the country on the progressive worldview, we need to our own progressives of faith speak openly to Americans of faith in the moral language they share — as Obama did, and the Kennedys did, and Martin Luther King did. Discussing morals, values, priorities, and meaning may not involve religion for you personally; but for the vast majority of your fellow Americans, it does, and we need people on board who can go there with them. The only other option is to let the conservative worldview continue to dominate — in which case, we might as well all pack it in, give up, and go home.
Standing behind “pragmatism”, “centrism” and bipartisanship HopeyChangey uses “salami tactics” to chop away at meaningful reform to create a nice goody bag for his sponsors. Like Jane said, the public option was the compromise, and that’s the line in the sand.
You aren’t going to drag “Progressives” along with you to sing Kum Bu Ya, while using the progressive label as a shield against the most ideologically committed of this group, of which I am one.
In your “I heart Obama” T-shirt, go gather around his feet with the rest of his base while he gives pretty speeches. That is the faction of the (D) party to which you belong. I’ll stay committed to the cause, not the man.
The tactic you are prescribing is demagoguery, and it is a turn off. Descending into the abyss of myth to make your points is like treading through mud. Every scripture has a contrarian scripture that may be used to trump it and then where do you take your argument? You end up trying to do a religious conversion from dominionism or calvanism to another less lethal form of religion.
Appealing to intellectual reason and values where atheistic/agnostics are going to end up.
I agree with you that religious people that identify with progressive politics should or could go to the source of scripture to make those arguments to exert influence. Religious zealots lack the skills to think critically, so demagoguery may be the only way to drag them along -to use them as “useful idiots” for our cause. We have got to break this chain of ignorance with education in civics, history lessons, and dare I say theology. That’s probably the quickest way to convert them to atheism.
In some of your arguments, I think you confuse morals and values with religious beliefs, and sometimes it comes off as a slight. We don’t need the fear of Hell and Damnation to do the right thing. That in itself begs the question how deeply held morals and convictions are, if fear has to be the lynch pin to make them adhere.
You missed the whole point of my post @29 about Democracy vs. Constitutional Republicanism.
gerryphillyesq @ 32:
gerryphillyesq @ 33:
1) Democracy is merely free and fair elections.
2) Constitutional Republicanism, or liberalism is the adherence to to the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property.
Saving Democracy? ..ok.. How do square delegate votes with democracy? Is it still a democracy?
RE: “delirious fevers rose like clouds of infectious mosquito nymphs hatched from a thick, overheated carpet of soggy astroturf”
MY COMMENT: Absolutely beautiful!!!
PS. Surprisingly, my spell-checker indicates that ‘astroturf’ should be capitalized. Merriam-Webster Online concurs. I suppose that is because it was trademarked that way.
You said you hoped that progressives would put our differences aside, and rally around some center, which is of course someone, rather than our common causes. “
Yes, I’d say that is an example of fantastical hero cult of personality worship, and that progress is dependent on him, rather than us, but until then — we’ll just bide our time until we find the “one” .
Here again, you put the causes on the back burner in deference to the “one”.
And exactly how long is an eon? Because that sounds like “romantic fiction ” to me.
The object is missing. Who or what will be perfected?
And as hctomorrow said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In some of your arguments, I think you confuse morals and values with religious beliefs, and sometimes it comes off as a slight. We don’t need the fear of Hell and Damnation to do the right thing. That in itself begs the question how deeply held morals and convictions are, if fear has to be the lynch pin to make them adhere.
I use those words VERY specifically, since I’m writing about them constantly in very particular ways. Lakoff told us that morals and values spring directly from the myths and metaphors we use to define the structure of reality. Science is one such model, and it does include a set of values — not all of which have served us well over the past couple of centuries. (The world as machine made of discrete pieces and parts, for example.) The various religions offer others, which also have their strengths and weaknesses. Progressive religion, almost by definition, is religion that finds a compromise position (or requires no compromise at all) between the two.
You are grossly misinformed if you believe that all religion — by definition — necessarily includes a belief in hell and damnation, or uses fear to motivate people. Progressive religion is a very different animal. By and large, progressive religions don’t preach brimstone and would be aghast at the thought of scaring people. (And most progressive people of faith would readily agree that fear is the enemy of true morality.) If that’s what you think progressive religion is about, no wonder you’re afraid of it. But that fear is based on an ignorance of the subject that’s every bit as extreme as the one fundamentalists have about science. It’s a rather large error in understanding that, as a person of reason, you might want to correct before holding forth further.